Spalding Guardian letters - March 7, 2019

I would like to thank the local paper, for their coverage of this issue. In particular their help in publishing details of a meeting I arranged at short notice at Bromley Hall to alert residents of a consultation process some knew nothing about.

Thanks also to Tina for making the hall available at short notice and helping with setting up.

Of the 150 or so who attended the meeting, the majority were against the two proposed routes which both had adverse impacts on homes of residents along Bourne Road, and possibly Horseshoe Road.

The way in which residents learned of the new proposals was not satisfactory and Coun Richard Davies (Lincolnshire County Council) has since said he has put in place steps to ensure residents will be consulted directly in future.

Most still understood the executive decision taken by the county council in 2012 that option 2A be the preferred route still stood.

That route joined Bourne Road where the lorry firm is located and swept well away from all the properties off Lavender, Buttercup, Primrose and Shearers Drive, crossing the fields to Horseshoe Road to a gap in the properties before joining the new road from the south.

At consultations meetings at that time we were told no residential properties were likely to be demolished.

Residents are now very upset and angry by the possible new routes.

For those who have not yet completed the questionnaire, the survey for residents’ comments is open until tomorrow (Friday) and can be completed online at www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/swrr

I hand delivered a copy of the petition to Coun Davies and also to Teresa James at County Hall in Lincoln this week and the residents hope their comments in the questionnaires and survey will be taken into account when a final decision on the route is taken.

Coun Angela Newton

via email

John Elson's Spalding Guardian cartoon. (7583000)

This plan would create a traffic nightmare

Why on earth would a preferred route go to Enterprise Way? That is still part of the built up area considered by many to still be in Spalding and it will be a nightmare for both local and through traffic.

Shame on you regarding the story about the voluntary car scheme. Why did Iris Landen not get a mention?

She is the lady who takes the calls and arranges all the transport.

The job she does deserves a lot of praise in making sure requests for transport are met by a very friendly lady.

Ian Grant

Spalding

EDITOR: This was a story about a cheque presentation to the scheme, with the money presented to scheme co-ordinator Greg Greene and chair Angela Newton. I know Iris Landen does a wonderful job as the organiser for Spalding and Cowbit but there was no reason to mention her or the organisers from other areas in this particular story.

Brexit

Our MP reflects our views

I do not agree with all Sir John Hayes’ opinions but with one exception my personal position on Brexit is exactly the same as his - we are lucky to have an MP who so closely represents the constituency’s majority view on this vitally important issue.

The exception is that there is far more wrong with Mrs May’s deal than the backstop.

It’s Brexit in name only and ties us into many EU institutions, with little chance of escape and with even less say than we have now.

A deal would have been great, but not this one. We need to leave on the due date and then negotiate from outside.

Coun Paul Foyster

Holbeach

I’m fed up with being insulted by our MP

With just a few days remaining to Brexit, and nearly thtree years after the EU Referendum in 2016, still we don’t know what Brexit means.

However, in his latest column, Sir John Hayes now angrily describes people like me as “unreconstructed remainers”, “in favour of their own elitist self-interest”, pushing “an ethically unacceptable second referendum”.

In saying this, he goes too far. I’m demonstrably campaigning for the best interests of our nation and for building a fairer, more equitable society in the UK, and am fed up being insulted by him.

It’s interesting that Sir John’s views on Theresa May’s ‘Blind Brexit’ proposition have changed fundamentally since his knighthood, and yet he still remains happy to say “no deal is the default position”, despite the catastrophic implications of a “no deal” Brexit. Moreover, he offers no benefits from his “no deal” Brexit. Whatever happened to all the Brexiteers’ earlier promises, like “the sunlit uplands of prosperity”, “the easiest trade deal in human history”, “the exact same benefits”, “they need us more than we need them”, “we hold all the cards”, “no disruption in trade”, “we can have our cake and eat it”, “£350m a week” for the NHS, etc? Instead, we face an exit bill of around £39billion, an economy already 2.5 per cent smaller than it otherwise would have been, and additional government costs running at over £500m a week (and rising). We also face over a decade trying to negotiate not just a new, inferior trading relationship with the EU but also new arrangements to replace the 127 trade-related agreements and over 750 other international agreements from which we currently benefit by virtue of EU membership.

Today I watched Dr Liam Fox MP admitting to Andrew Marr that he’d only secured six of the 40 trade deals he promised to Parliament by Mar 29, 20 19. Our country deserves better than this.

Sir John suggests three ways forward for Brexit. Let me suggest a fourth: allow voters to give their informed consent (or not) to whatever Parliament decides by means of a Final Say referendum.

If Sir John’s Brexit is as brilliant as he envisages and commands overwhelming public support, what can he possibly fear from a democratic vote on it?